5 ms·

Don't IUDs have a lot of negative impacts on a woman/teenage girl's health? I seem to remember there was a study about bleeding, irregular menstral periods, and

Don't IUDs have a lot of negative impacts on a woman/teenage girl's health? I seem to remember there was a study about bleeding, irregular menstral periods, and an increase in urine tract infections. It seems irresponsible to give a device like that out to any teenager that wants one. Not that pills are any better. It doesn't matter what direction the arrow on the graph is pointing if the way you got there is by potentially hurting people.

noelwelsh 11y ago
All medical treatments are a trade-off.
Geeek 11y ago
Yups. My SO has the most unpredictable periods since she got her IUD. It's a huuuuge tradeoff that we are not sure it worth it in the long run.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  That may be true, but many women upon receiving an IUD actually find that after a few months their menstrual cycles stabilize and decrease. It's such a pronounced effect that doctors use certain types of IUDs to help stabilize certain conditions. It doesn't help everyone with this, but it helps enough people that it's worth trying.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
Not your job to police women's bodies. If she is fully informed and wishes to use one then this is her personal decision. Not yours.
- rubiquity 11y ago
  That's completely fair! I'm not trying to make the decision for anyone and I'm not sure where you got that from my post. But isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs? Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this?
  - noelwelsh 11y ago
    Do you like jails? Do you like cars and roads? Do you like electricity? States and countries put their backing behind many things with well known, negative tradeoffs. Update: for example, a paper on the psychological damage done by jailing people: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm
    - rubiquity 11y ago
      Your argument is ridiculous so I'm just writing to let you know I won't even entertain you. Hopefully nobody else does either.
      - noelwelsh 11y ago
        Nice attempt at ducking the argument. Let me spell it out for you (and other readers should they be so misguided). You argue "isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?" The state supports many things with that have negative aspects. I listed a few obvious ones in my previous comments. In fact everything in life involves a tradeoff. One can study these things and develop some quantitative measure of the negative and positive effect. Here are some studies on IUD complications: http://www.popline.org/node/490794 http://www.popline.org/node/490794 (youths) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406002897 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406... (following birth) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600026994 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600... (UIT infection specifically) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 (general) You can see that the complications are generally regarded as being quite minor or low probability. For many people this is a tradeoff worth making, given the near 100% success rate in prevent pregnancy. Now this refers to IUDs. The Colorado program also provides hormonal birth control, via a long lasting implant. I'll let you do your own research on these.
  - balls187 11y ago
    > Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this? In the US, the Federal Government has jurisdiction over drugs such as birth control. Your argument suggests that negative side effects are harmful, and certain. In the teeny amount of research I've done, it doesn't appear that this is the case.
- balls187 11y ago
  You're making a straw man argument here. The parent commenter is asking the risks of intrauterine birth control. In the US, the FDA polices all medical drugs for safety and efficacy, regardless if they are for reproductive health or not.
- deelowe 11y ago
  I think the topic is more spurred from this being a government sponsored service that is offered to minors. Overall, this seems like a shining success. However, are IUDs the safest option? Should the government offer others? No "policing" is necessary to answer these questions.
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  My concern here would just be parental knowledge. I would permit my daughter to get an IUD at a young age if that was her decision regardless of our families religious / moral views (though I would encourage her to be informed), but if I'm responsible for her health and safety, I damn well better know what someone else is implanting in her.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    How old until she's allowed to control her medical treatment in your opinion?
    - TallGuyShort 11y ago
      I'm not saying I control her medical treatment, I'm saying I would want to be aware. If she's getting an IUD implanted without my knowledge, is she likely to come to me or her mother for help if / when she suffers a serious side-effect?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Why would she go to you for medical advice?
        TallGuyShort 11y ago
        Um... because we're her parents and we would see to it she received all the care she needed should a complication arise?
    - VLM 11y ago
      Locally everything medical(ish) that isn't sex related needs 18 yrs. Everything from vaccination requiring a signed consent form and if under 18, a parent or legal guardian, to ear (or other) piercing, to tattoos. The traveling health care fair came to my employer recently and I remember pretty much "everything" required a similar boilerplate consent form, even just pricking your finger for blood sugar screening. For consistencies sake, 18 yrs sounds reasonable. If we're going to apply boilerplate almost everywhere, why not simply apply it everywhere? There is no particular reason 18 is a good age. Eighteen and a day passes for all medical decisions but weirdly enough not to drink a simple beer, and some states have really weird legislation about exactly which vegetation is permitted to possess / smoke. Somewhere in the range of 13 to 22 for all of the above sounds about right.
dalke 11y ago
Pregnancy also has "a lot" of negative impacts. Quoting from http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/iud http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/iud in the section about disadvantages: > You may have: - mild to moderate pain when the IUD is put in - cramping or backache for a few days - spotting between periods in the first 3–6 months - irregular periods in the first 3–6 months — with Mirena or Skyla - heavier periods and worse menstrual cramps — with ParaGard > Pain relievers can usually reduce bleeding, cramping, and other discomforts. If they are severe and do not seem to lessen, tell your health care provider. > Serious problems with the IUD are rare. ... In rare situations, a woman could develop an infection when using the IUD. This happens if bacteria get into the uterus when the IUD is inserted.
emidln 11y ago
Mirena in particular is also linked with mood disorders in 5%-10% of users. Edit: s/15/10/ as per [1] [1] http://www.mirena-us.com/safety-considerations/ http://www.mirena-us.com/safety-considerations/
Osmium 11y ago
I am not a doctor. That said, my understanding is that IUDs are one of the best contraceptive methods out there. They have a bad reputation because they had issues when they were initially introduced, and they haven't quite overcome that reputation yet even though modern ones are excellent. There are non-hormonal ones too (pure copper), so it can avoid a whole host of side effects that some women experience with hormonal birth control. However they can also cause heavier periods with some people. Otherwise they seem to be the model of what you'd want a contraceptive to be (excellent effectiveness, safe, easily reversible, and forgettable–they last years and years).
DanBC 11y ago
When you ask female "women's health providers" what contraception they use for themselves a modern IUD is top of the list. Here's a Vox article about it: http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8092483/birth-control-iud http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8092483/birth-control-iud
__z 11y ago
> Don't IUDs have a lot of negative impacts on a woman/teenage girl's health? IUDs are classified as "pretty safe" for most users. They are also easily removed if undesired side effects are noted. They almost certainly are safer than pregnancy for most users. Individual users have contraindications that prevent IUD use or make IUD use riskier, that is why they are a prescription medical device and users are advised of the risks and their other options. IUDs also have some benefits. >I seem to remember there was a study about bleeding, irregular menstral periods, and an increase in urine tract infections. There are two types of IUDs, hormonal and copper. ANY hormonal contraception "messes" with periods in ways that aren't predictable. If side effects are not bearable you can simply get the IUD removed, it is easily reversible. Irregular bleeding is not harmful in any way but can be a huge nuance. Copper IUDs can cause increased bleeding but aren't hormonal. If UTIs or other complications are a problem then the IUD can be removed. >It seems irresponsible to give a device like that out to any teenager that wants one. It seems irresponsible to not offer teenagers a very effective contraceptive. All medical interventions have a risk of side effects. We would like the user to be aware of such risks and make an informed choice. UIDs (in general) got a bad rap because of the Dalkon Shield in the 1970s. It had a design flaw that harmed a large number of users. Modern IUDs are much safer.

noelwelsh 11y ago

All medical treatments are a trade-off.

Geeek 11y ago

Yups. My SO has the most unpredictable periods since she got her IUD. It's a huuuuge tradeoff that we are not sure it worth it in the long run.

KirinDave 11y ago
That may be true, but many women upon receiving an IUD actually find that after a few months their menstrual cycles stabilize and decrease. It's such a pronounced effect that doctors use certain types of IUDs to help stabilize certain conditions. It doesn't help everyone with this, but it helps enough people that it's worth trying.

JupiterMoon 11y ago

Not your job to police women's bodies. If she is fully informed and wishes to use one then this is her personal decision. Not yours.

rubiquity 11y ago
That's completely fair! I'm not trying to make the decision for anyone and I'm not sure where you got that from my post. But isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs? Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this?
- noelwelsh 11y ago
  Do you like jails? Do you like cars and roads? Do you like electricity? States and countries put their backing behind many things with well known, negative tradeoffs. Update: for example, a paper on the psychological damage done by jailing people: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm
  - rubiquity 11y ago
    Your argument is ridiculous so I'm just writing to let you know I won't even entertain you. Hopefully nobody else does either.
    - noelwelsh 11y ago
      Nice attempt at ducking the argument. Let me spell it out for you (and other readers should they be so misguided). You argue "isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?" The state supports many things with that have negative aspects. I listed a few obvious ones in my previous comments. In fact everything in life involves a tradeoff. One can study these things and develop some quantitative measure of the negative and positive effect. Here are some studies on IUD complications: http://www.popline.org/node/490794 http://www.popline.org/node/490794 (youths) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406002897 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406... (following birth) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600026994 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600... (UIT infection specifically) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 (general) You can see that the complications are generally regarded as being quite minor or low probability. For many people this is a tradeoff worth making, given the near 100% success rate in prevent pregnancy. Now this refers to IUDs. The Colorado program also provides hormonal birth control, via a long lasting implant. I'll let you do your own research on these.
- balls187 11y ago
  > Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this? In the US, the Federal Government has jurisdiction over drugs such as birth control. Your argument suggests that negative side effects are harmful, and certain. In the teeny amount of research I've done, it doesn't appear that this is the case.
balls187 11y ago
You're making a straw man argument here. The parent commenter is asking the risks of intrauterine birth control. In the US, the FDA polices all medical drugs for safety and efficacy, regardless if they are for reproductive health or not.
deelowe 11y ago
I think the topic is more spurred from this being a government sponsored service that is offered to minors. Overall, this seems like a shining success. However, are IUDs the safest option? Should the government offer others? No "policing" is necessary to answer these questions.
TallGuyShort 11y ago
My concern here would just be parental knowledge. I would permit my daughter to get an IUD at a young age if that was her decision regardless of our families religious / moral views (though I would encourage her to be informed), but if I'm responsible for her health and safety, I damn well better know what someone else is implanting in her.
- DanBC 11y ago
  How old until she's allowed to control her medical treatment in your opinion?
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    I'm not saying I control her medical treatment, I'm saying I would want to be aware. If she's getting an IUD implanted without my knowledge, is she likely to come to me or her mother for help if / when she suffers a serious side-effect?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Why would she go to you for medical advice?
      - TallGuyShort 11y ago
        Um... because we're her parents and we would see to it she received all the care she needed should a complication arise?
  - VLM 11y ago
    Locally everything medical(ish) that isn't sex related needs 18 yrs. Everything from vaccination requiring a signed consent form and if under 18, a parent or legal guardian, to ear (or other) piercing, to tattoos. The traveling health care fair came to my employer recently and I remember pretty much "everything" required a similar boilerplate consent form, even just pricking your finger for blood sugar screening. For consistencies sake, 18 yrs sounds reasonable. If we're going to apply boilerplate almost everywhere, why not simply apply it everywhere? There is no particular reason 18 is a good age. Eighteen and a day passes for all medical decisions but weirdly enough not to drink a simple beer, and some states have really weird legislation about exactly which vegetation is permitted to possess / smoke. Somewhere in the range of 13 to 22 for all of the above sounds about right.

dalke 11y ago

Pregnancy also has "a lot" of negative impacts. Quoting from http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/iud http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/iud in the section about disadvantages: > You may have: - mild to moderate pain when the IUD is put in - cramping or backache for a few days - spotting between periods in the first 3–6 months - irregular periods in the first 3–6 months — with Mirena or Skyla - heavier periods and worse menstrual cramps — with ParaGard > Pain relievers can usually reduce bleeding, cramping, and other discomforts. If they are severe and do not seem to lessen, tell your health care provider. > Serious problems with the IUD are rare. ... In rare situations, a woman could develop an infection when using the IUD. This happens if bacteria get into the uterus when the IUD is inserted.

emidln 11y ago

Mirena in particular is also linked with mood disorders in 5%-10% of users. Edit: s/15/10/ as per [1] [1] http://www.mirena-us.com/safety-considerations/ http://www.mirena-us.com/safety-considerations/

Osmium 11y ago

I am not a doctor. That said, my understanding is that IUDs are one of the best contraceptive methods out there. They have a bad reputation because they had issues when they were initially introduced, and they haven't quite overcome that reputation yet even though modern ones are excellent. There are non-hormonal ones too (pure copper), so it can avoid a whole host of side effects that some women experience with hormonal birth control. However they can also cause heavier periods with some people. Otherwise they seem to be the model of what you'd want a contraceptive to be (excellent effectiveness, safe, easily reversible, and forgettable–they last years and years).

DanBC 11y ago

When you ask female "women's health providers" what contraception they use for themselves a modern IUD is top of the list. Here's a Vox article about it: http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8092483/birth-control-iud http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8092483/birth-control-iud

__z 11y ago

> Don't IUDs have a lot of negative impacts on a woman/teenage girl's health? IUDs are classified as "pretty safe" for most users. They are also easily removed if undesired side effects are noted. They almost certainly are safer than pregnancy for most users. Individual users have contraindications that prevent IUD use or make IUD use riskier, that is why they are a prescription medical device and users are advised of the risks and their other options. IUDs also have some benefits. >I seem to remember there was a study about bleeding, irregular menstral periods, and an increase in urine tract infections. There are two types of IUDs, hormonal and copper. ANY hormonal contraception "messes" with periods in ways that aren't predictable. If side effects are not bearable you can simply get the IUD removed, it is easily reversible. Irregular bleeding is not harmful in any way but can be a huge nuance. Copper IUDs can cause increased bleeding but aren't hormonal. If UTIs or other complications are a problem then the IUD can be removed. >It seems irresponsible to give a device like that out to any teenager that wants one. It seems irresponsible to not offer teenagers a very effective contraceptive. All medical interventions have a risk of side effects. We would like the user to be aware of such risks and make an informed choice. UIDs (in general) got a bad rap because of the Dalkon Shield in the 1970s. It had a design flaw that harmed a large number of users. Modern IUDs are much safer.